20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:42 pm
@georgeob1,
Perhaps he is, but he is at least making an argument for his point of view and isn't finding it necessary to be insulting while doing it. He has also offered a couple of challenges that so far none of the 'more informed' have seemed to find words to tackle.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It's not the reading that matters; it's the comprehension of what one reads that's important. When we read, we are required to remember the facts of what we read; otherwise, it's a waste of time.


Why do you read ci? It's self evidently a waste of time you doing so.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:24 pm
@spendius,
spendi, You're the king of classic literature on a2k, but you misrepresent the quotes you use to make your point. They are most often not even related to the topic in which you respond. At least I don't get as many challenges as you do on any topic. LOL
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 09:50 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

For example, I would love to hear from George, or anyone, why Hitler was right or left wing, based upon this statement of his:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Economic policy is I would say a huge part of political philosophy, George.



Hitler never ever said such.

Since you didn't give any source for the above:

It's from Strasser's "Nationalsozialistische Briefe" ('National Socialist Letters'), a bi-weekly magazine, and published with a 'letter to the editors' , in 1925.

Still on the trip of teaching German history, okie?

It is cited as a quote of Adolf Hitler in John Toland's 1976 book on Hitler - as a quote from Hitler's May 1, 1927 speech. If you have evidence to refute this, please do so, but I don't find the quote inconsistent with Hitler's philosophy and other quotes. So are you sure Hitler never said such, and if you are sure, provide the backup.

The challenge stands, Walter.
okie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 10:04 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Nicely done Walter !

Not so fast. See above post.

Quote:
Unfortunately facts don't persuade the 'true believers' in absurd doctrines.

Perhaps Hitler was "to the left" (whatever that means) of the United States in some respects.
So you call it absurd and then agree to a point, but then fail to point out where Hitler was to the right of us in any respect. Please try something if you can, George.
Quote:
Okie concludes from this that everything in that direction leads inexorably to dictatorship.

What I have concluded is that socialism and communism by definition requires a strong central government to administer. Which provides a more fertile ground for dictatorships, George.

Quote:
More to the point, he also asserts that there is no difference between things as disparate as authoritarian socialism as practiced in the Soviet proletarian paradise and authoritarianism as practiced by Facist states.

Where did I assert that. Please provide quotes, just pulling something out of the air does not get it.
Quote:
While they do have authoritarianism and the lack of freedom in common, and the extremes of left & right political slavery do tend to diminish all the other differences, the paths through which these two systems achieved power and rationalized its use could not have been more different.
Huh? If the end result is the same, what difference does it make, besides where did I ever claim all leftism was the same, there are different degrees of socialism all the way to communism, but to claim the differences do not mean they aren't all left of us is nonsense.

Quote:
Alas, Okie is armed with a malignant certainty that is not disturbed by questions, inconsistencies or even contradictory facts.



Alas, I love the use of the word, "malignant," which is cute, but doesn't tell anyone a thing. Your questions, inconsistencies, or contradictory facts have to be enumerated and evidenced, not merely claimed. The challenge stands, if you can tabulate the reasons why you believe Hitler was to the right of the United States, have at it.

And to really examine this, I provided an in depth discussion of this, using the Nazi Party points, and so I am on pretty sound footing for what I believe here. You will need to go back a few pages on this thread. I will see if I can find the page.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 10:31 pm
Here it is from way back on Page 2 of this thread: As explained, the red type indicates leftist policies, as I interpret them, and I think the interpretations are pretty indisputable for the most part. And notice all the red, almost throughout the entire document, and one of the loudest headlines in the document is "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD." This general principle permeates the entire document, and is indisputably Leftist idealogy.

I think I at one point discussed Mein Kampf in this thread somewhere, and so you would be welcome to dispute the obvious leftist idealogy in that document as well, George, but I just don't think you can do it.

I am continually amused at the intellectuals on this forum that just can't abide a hick from Oklahoma puncturing their long held beliefs that they were indoctrinated with at some point in their past. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I would think you should welcome a fresh perspective that can challenge some of this stuff. And I am of course far from alone. Read Jonah Goldberg for one, who has well documented much of what I have claimed here.

okie wrote:

One of the running debates here in politics has been with mainly "old europe," but other as well, in regard to whether Hitler was an extreme rightist or a socialist or leftist. I have now read some of Mein Kampf and have also read the 25 points of the Nazi Party. I believe the evidence is clear from these documents that Hitler was leftist or a socialist, in context with American politics, left and right. I am going to list the Nazi 25 points of the party in the following.

I have highlighted what I would judge leftist policies in red, and the most leftist policies in bold red. I have also highlighted in blue those policies that I have judged to be a result of World War I, simply a reaction to a German defeat and attempt to regain their footing, and in so doing, the hatreds and resentments of Hitler are evidenced by those points, that are neither left or right in my opinion, just Hitler and the German peoples mindset. I have left in black those points that seem to me to be fairly normal and reasonable for most countries. As you can see, the vast majority of the 25 points I think are clearly leftist in nature.

Nazi Party 25 Points:

1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.


6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood.
If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.


15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.


20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.


24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 01:18 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

It is cited as a quote of Adolf Hitler in John Toland's 1976 book on Hitler - as a quote from Hitler's May 1, 1927 speech. If you have evidence to refute this, please do so, but I don't find the quote inconsistent with Hitler's philosophy and other quotes. So are you sure Hitler never said such, and if you are sure, provide the backup.

The challenge stands, Walter.


Written. Black on white. Besides that, see for example Fest's book abotut Hitler (other authors could read German as well, and found that source, too.Easily.)

And, well, I didn't live in the those days, and it may be that Hitler once said/quoted such.

But in May 1927, Hitler wasn't allowed to speak in public in Germany (Prussia exactly, but other states forbid it, too). The first major speech was in Nürnberg, in August.

But you really seem to be better informed.
Thanks for your informations.
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 02:36 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I admit that a few (conservative) historians, and here especially US-Americans, regard National-Socialism as being close to Socialism, even Communism.

Inded, the Strasser brothers (and their followers, the so-called 'Strassianians') may be considered as representatives of a Socialistic wing (NB: NOT Communism!) within the NSDAP.

That definitely ended in 1930, after the confrontational meeting of Hitler and Otto Strasser (May 20/21, meeting with the Strasser group).
This was finalised on July 4, 1930, with the public call from Strasser group Socialists leave the the NSDAO .

Hitler didn't want to frighten the capitalists with "wild experiments".
Thus, he rejected socialism, favoured individual initiative and free enterprise, defended the right to hold private property.

For further reading (in English, there are published quite a few more in German) see for instance Dan P. Silverman, Hitler's economy: Nazi work creation programs, 1933-1936, (Harvard University Press, 1998) and especially Avraham Barkai, Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy
(Yale University Press, 1990).
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:07 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

For further reading (in English, there are published quite a few more in German) see for instance Dan P. Silverman, Hitler's economy: Nazi work creation programs, 1933-1936, (Harvard University Press, 1998) and especially Avraham Barkai, Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy
(Yale University Press, 1990).



Barkai's book was origianally published in German, as Barkai, Avraham: Das Wirtschaftssystem des Nazionalsozialsmus. Der historische und ideologische Hintergrund 1933-1936 (Cologne, 1977).

When looking through the (German) literature, I found a nice description of the NAZIs economic ideas in Petzina (Petzina, Dietmar: Autarkiepolitik im Dritten Reich. Der nationalsozialistische Vierjahresplan [Stuttgart, 1969]), which say that it was "a state-run commando economy based on private-capitalistic foundations" (as quoted in Wendt's Handbook of the Third Reich).
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:27 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And, well, I didn't live in the those days, and it may be that Hitler once said/quoted such.

So, the truth is you don't have proof he never said it as cited by my source. Besides, it doesn't really matter, we can after all go to the horses mouth, the 25 points of the Nazi Party, and we can also look at Mein Kampf, to confirm the obvious that I have asserted here.

Again, you are very welcome to analyze the 25 points of the Nazi Party and attempt to make your argument that it is a conservative list of points instead of a liberal or leftist agenda. Somehow, I doubt you will try it.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:31 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I admit that a few (conservative) historians, and here especially US-Americans, regard National-Socialism as being close to Socialism, even Communism.

Well, nice that you finally admit what should be obvious. I find it amusing alot of people have denigrated my information here, but at least you now dare to admit it has credibility, but not until after making a few cute comments about teaching you about German politics and history.

Quote:
Inded, the Strasser brothers (and their followers, the so-called 'Strassianians') may be considered as representatives of a Socialistic wing (NB: NOT Communism!) within the NSDAP.

That definitely ended in 1930, after the confrontational meeting of Hitler and Otto Strasser (May 20/21, meeting with the Strasser group).
This was finalised on July 4, 1930, with the public call from Strasser group Socialists leave the the NSDAO .

Hitler didn't want to frighten the capitalists with "wild experiments".
Thus, he rejected socialism, favoured individual initiative and free enterprise, defended the right to hold private property.

For further reading (in English, there are published quite a few more in German) see for instance Dan P. Silverman, Hitler's economy: Nazi work creation programs, 1933-1936, (Harvard University Press, 1998) and especially Avraham Barkai, Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy
(Yale University Press, 1990).


Hitler rejected socialism? Any evidence at all, Walter, or is it just another comment pulled out of thin air? Defending private property, sure, Obama probably defends it as well, but is Obama a leftist, Walter, or is he an ultra right winger?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:37 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

So, the truth is you don't have proof he never said it as cited by my source.


Well, I've heard that he said, you, okie, have no idea about German history.

okie wrote:
Again, you are very welcome to analyze the 25 points of the Nazi Party and attempt to make your argument that it is a conservative list of points instead of a liberal or leftist agenda. Somehow, I doubt you will try it.


Thanks for the invitation, okie.

It was - I think - 28 years ago that I did this, 3rd semester history at university. My professor was Mommsen - that certainly will tell you something.

Five respectively ten years ago, I wrote about this - though only tangentially - on papers for the Open University London and the Distance University of Hagen (lecturers in London, professor Brandt in Hagen).

And you really think, I should do it for you as well, and now?

You're doubts are correct: it would be like casting pearls before swine, since you totally lack any understanding not only of German history, historical facts in general.
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:46 am
@Walter Hinteler,
However, in short: the 25-point program clearly was one to get the support of some on the left side. Since the actual policy of the NSDAP was different, the few left wingers left. (See my response above, which okie obviously mised.)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:49 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I don't care what papers you wrote or what university you went to, frankly, Walter. And if you think you have pearls and I am swine, that tells everyone here about your attitude doesn't it, but as they say, if you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. If you can't defend your opinion with any substance, then quit bothering me here. This forum is about posting evidence once in a while at least.
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:51 am
@okie,
Either YOU read what I posted, okie, or you don't.

Obviously YOU decided not to read it.

Evidence? Where did I leave out evidence?


Have a nice time.
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 10:01 am
@Walter Hinteler,
okie has a fixed mind that doesn't allow new factual information to intrude! No matter how many challenges his claims and misinformation, he still believes what he knows are the facts and nothing but.

Some peoples brains are forever locked in ignorance, and okie is one of them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 11:48 am
@okie,
Alright. I'll try again to give some basic information.

Opposite to the the situation in e.g. the USA, Germany had a distinctive party system, even in times of the empire: from the left to the right.

When the empire collapsed, the party structures that have evolved over decades stayed as they were but now became responsible for the every day politics.
Slightly changes in party names happened, but from 1918/19 onwards they were generally spoken
- the conservatives (mainly represented by the 'Deutschnationale Volkspartei' ["German National People's Party"] on the right side,
- the political Catholicism (respresented by the 'Zentrum' ["Centre"] and the 'Bayerische Volkspartei' ["Bavarian People's Party"] in the centre of the political spectrum,
- the right ('Deutsche Volkspartei' ["German People's Party"]) and left ('Deutsche Demokratische Partei' ["German Democratic Party"]) liberal parties,
- and the Social-Democrats on the left side.
On the extreme left wing were the Communists. On the extreme right later the NSDAP.


About 20 more splinter parties tried to get a seat in the 'Reichstag' (and even more on in the various states). Some succeeded, like the "Independent Social-Democrats", the "Evangelical German People's Party" and a few more.

As generally know, it was a big chaos in Germany. (Until 1920, still more than 400,000 men were fighting in the various [about 300] 'Freicorps' [free corps, unofficial military organisations].)

All poltical parties had been surprised by the "revolution" (= end of the monarchy and sudden start of democracy).

While the "established" parties tried to re-define their former party programs to a democratic, republican attitude, new parties had to try to find supporters.

The 'Deutsche Arbeiter Partei' (DAP) started in Munich, with the idea of promoting their extremist right-wing views under a left name.
The idea would have worked elsewhere perhaps better but in Munich: Munich/Bavaria had enough parties - and was the very first left/communist/socialist republic in Germany (though only for a short period, but what I mean is that the left side was already "taken").
Hitler and his 'group' not only changed the name, but their program was a lot better focused on what they thought Germans wanted: everything from the right to the left for every social stratum, centred around their racial ideas (what the DAP already had had before, too).
(The Communists didn't want such qua dogma, but focused on Marxism and the USSR.)



Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 12:13 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
If you can't defend your opinion with any substance, then quit bothering me here. This forum is about posting evidence once in a while at least.


I still think that I've posted more substance on your questions and about this topic than you have, okie.

I admit that I didn't post "evidence", e.g. primary sources.
However, I've scanned most ('most', I'm not sure of there are more) published speeches from Hitler and couldn't find the sentences you used.

Would you mind giving the 'evidence' for it, e.g. place and date, published where and by whom etc?
This forum is about evidence ... Thank you.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:35 pm
You're wasting your time, Walter. Okie made up his mind before he began the thread, and the only "evidence" he will acknowledge is that which will at least seem to support his position. Now he's got that nit-wit Fox supporting him, so there's no hope of ever getting through to him.
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:47 pm
@Setanta,
It's even funnier than serious; okie thinks he has more knowledge about German history than Walter who studied German history and also taught German history.

That fact alone should have been clue enough that what okie claimed were uninformed and downright ignorant!

But okie will parade on with his misinformation on all subjects he seems to engage himself on a2k even when evidence proves him wrong.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 01:58:20